The Ethical Imperative in the Context of Evolving Technologies


11 déc. 2012 (il y a 6 années et 8 mois)

4 956 vue(s)

The Ethical Imperative in the Context of
Evolving Technologies


Dan McIntosh

Ralph Drabic

Kristina Huber

Igor Vinogradov

Michael Bassick

Faculty Supervision

Dr. Dirk Hovorka

University of Colorado

Leeds School of Business

er Art By

Andrea Jensen

Table of Contents




Editors Notes



e Ethics of Genetic Screening



Jaylene Stewart, Diem Thy Tran

e Ethics of Gender Selection



Whitney Akchurin, Ryan Ka

The Ethics of Stem Cell Research and Prenatal

Genetic Alteration



Blake Rodgers, Brandon Peterson

Chapter 2: Ethics in the Workplace

The Ethics of Pre
Employment Screening Thr
ough the Use of the Internet



Michael Jones, Adam Schuckman, Kelly


Use of Facebook in Recruiting



Peter Engler, Peter Tanoury

Employee Surveillan
ce: An Ethical Consideration



Michael Bassick, Tyler McNamara, Deborah Sullivan

Chapter 3: Ethics in Social Technologies





Beischel, Jessica Metz, Christine Rathbone

The Eth
ics of Public Shaming


Chad Cusworth, Brian Daniels, Emily Rondi

Ethics and the Advancement of Military Technology



Tim Maine, Jon Brachle, Art Arago

The Ethi
cal Issues Surrounding Wi



ole Houston, Devin Reams, Natalie Zelinsky

Ethics in Second Life



Stuart Barwick, Ralph Drabic III

Playing With Eth
ics: Video Game Controversy



Jimmy Dang, Jin Lee, Chau Nguyen

Intellectual Property in a Digital Age



Dan McIntosh, S
tuart Schaefer, Christina Gould

Ethics of Genetically Modified Crop Bans



David Payne, Luke Peters


Trust, Choice, and Privacy



Gus Meuli, Caitlin Finn

Chapter 4: Ethics of Data Aggregation

Data Mining



Craig Chomsky, Marek Dvorak

he Truth about RFID



Kristina Huber, Lisa Houck, Igor Vinogradov, Samuel Napp, Anthony Chiulli, John Bialk

thin the Retail Environment



ristina Huber, Lisa Houck, Igor Vinogradov

RFID and Consumer Tracking



Sam Napp, Anthony Chiulli,
John Bialk

Issues of Data Surveillance



Joseph Donahue, Nicholas Whittemore, Ashley Heerman



"If I am not

doing anything wrong, why should I care if my employer or the government
is reading my email, watching my internet use, and using video to keep me under

"Of course I Google him and check his Facebook /Myspace page before I go out with

I don't want to go on a date with some creep!"

"I would categorize job applicants with data
mining tools. I want to be sure to hire the
best employees!”

These paraphrased comments come from college seniors in an ethics seminar entitled
"Ethics and Tech
nology." They echo the sentiments of many students who live amidst a plethora
of innovative and rapidly evolving technologies. It is remarkable that, although essentially
impossible as little as ten years ago, these practices seem to have been accepted wit
hout any
ethical concerns about privacy, accuracy, or fairness. Many students are members of social
networks that often contain what was once considered "private" information, they accept that
corporations will monitor their workplace and personal behavio
rs, and that the government may
be reading their email and assigning them "terrorist risk assessments." We each make daily moral
decisions regarding our use of technologies but rarely are we asked to explain or justify those
decisions from an

point. The ethics of the technology used today remains
unexamined by the majority of users.

The speed of change in modern society has been likened to "
a sports car with no light
hurtling through

the dark

at a

constantly accelerating

. Most
of the
passengers look
rather dazed

…. And

no one in the car knows where the brake pedal is, if there even is one.


dazed passengers, we realize that surveillance is ubiquitous, from government monitoring of
phone calls, emails, and international travel

patterns, to corporate monitoring of web
site visits,
communications, physical location, and computer keystrokes.

We accept genetic testing, DNA
fingerprinting, modified foods, virtual worlds, and a barrage of technological advances, and only
rarely step

back to ask “does our ability
to use

these new technologies mean that we

them?” The authors took the time to confront how new technologies are shaping the ethics of
their age.

This book represents the efforts of a group of bright and talented

students to analyze the
ethics of the technologies that they currently take for granted, and to ask whether evolving
technologies may require new ethics. The contents of this book are entirely researched, written,
edited, and published by a group of senio
rs at the Leeds School of Business. The goal of the
seminar was to provide a framework

within which moral dilemmas regarding technologies,
technology in particular, can be identified, analyzed and discussed. As all these students
have a sense of eth
ics, there was no attempt to "teach ethics." Instead, the assumptions that
support moral perspectives were brought to the surface and challenged. Rather than debating
whether the use of a particular technology was "correct" or "incorrect," the students eng
aged in
examining how valid, sound, and persuasive arguments

for policies or decisions regarding
technology and its uses can be constructed.

From the “trolley problem,” the philosophy of privacy, professional codes of conduct,
and data mining

to Mellow'
s justification for the Iraq War,

Bandura's theory of moral

and Whetstone's triparite prescription for servant leadership,

the abstract
theories of ethics were grounded in real
world examples. The difficulties in balancing ethical
ns such as utility, duty, fairness and promoting virtuous behaviors (e.g. honesty, trust,
loyalty, integrity and courage) were revealed as students difficult wrestled with the process of
crafting policies and guidelines for corporate governance.

Using cu
rrent news and academic literature, students identified technologies, which
require us to reexamine our values. The depth, breadth and speed of change of the issues
surrounding technologies in business, government, and society and the difficulty in develop
coherent ethical policies in this environment were revealed as authors selected topics to pursue,
selected papers and articles to present, and led class discussions of the ethics of the issues.

Topics ran the gamut of advancing technologies including
employee surveillance, Radio
Frequency Identification technology, use of social networks for employee screening, intellectual
property in a digital environment, violence in video games, and advances in military technology.
The concepts of public/private sp
heres, and the relationship of technologies to privacy, to
security, and to honesty are complex and often contextual issues. The business environment many
of these authors will enter is under ever
greater scrutiny from many different stakeholders. As
react to, and create policies regarding the use of technology in their chosen profession, in
society, and in their lives these students will be well served by an ability to recognize, justify, and
be persuasive in the ethical application of new technology.

Researching and writing these papers required that the authors challenge their own beliefs
and take a position on the issues. This is a thorny task when there is no “right answer” to which
they can refer. But each of the authors engaged in a critical co
mponent of education


in the debate. These students now have a greater awareness of the benefits and risks
inherent in the technologies now in use and have the skills to confront the ethical considerations
of new technologies as they appear.

These skills differentiate them from most seniors in a critical
area of business and society

the domain of Ethics of Technology.

Dr. Dirk S Hovorka

Scholar in Residence

Leeds School of Business

University of Colorado at Boulder

Works Cited

[1] Toda, M, “History of human societies as molded by human emotions: Past, present

and future”, Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales 40 (1): 153

MAR 2001

Stanley, J., and Steinhardt, B. "Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains:

The Growth of an American Surveillance Society," American Civil Liberties Union

New Yo
rk, 2003.

[3] Available at:

[4] Tavinii, H.T., Ethics and Technology: Ethical Issues in an Age o
f Information and

Technology, 2

edition, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, 200

[5] “Why Math Will Rock Your World” , Business Week, January 23, 2006

[6] Mellow, D. “Iraq: A Morally Justified War”,
Journal of Philosophy
, 23(3) 2006 pp


Bandura, A. "Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities,"

Journal of


(31) 1996, pp 3881

Whetstone, J.T. "How Virtue Fit
s Within Business Ethics,"
Journal of Business Ethics

(33) 2001, pp 101

Editors Notes


This spring 2007 semester has taught us to explore the ethical dilemma
surrounding the advancement and creation of technology, enabled us to evaluate our own
ethical framework, and provided us with the appropriate tools to handle situations in the
future which challenge our ethical beliefs. This book was written, edited, an
d published
within the time constraints of a single semester. The intellectual property and opinions of
the documents contained within are the sole responsibility of the respective authors and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors, faculty ad
visors, or the Leeds School
of Business. Additionally, although the editors made a best effort to ensure correct
bibliographical citation, we could not correct every problem within the allotted time.


The Editors

Chapter 1:

Ethics of Biotechnologies

The Ethics of Genetic Screening

Jaylene Stewar
Diem Thy Tran



The development of the Human Genome
Project has raised many privacy
concerns regarding the use of genetic screening in employment, health premium
coverage, and data
mining. Moreover, what causes extreme concern is the lack of direct
government regulation addressing the use of such informati
on. There is no law directly
addressing this issue or who should be given access to this information. This paper will
discuss how
the information found from genetic screening limits the rights of individuals
in employment and insurance considerations whi
le increasing the accessibility of medical
data to third parties. Undoubtedly, there is a need for more government regulation to
prohibit the misuse of genetic data

as well as

a need for companies to abide by ethical
standards to ensure
sound applicati
ons of this information.

Origins of Genetic Screening

The Human Genome Project (HGP)
, formally started in 1990,

is a 13 year effort
coordinated by the federal government. The goal of this project includes developing an
information system for collecting
, storing, retrieving, analyzing, interpreting, and
distributing the large amounts of data generated by the research.

Also, HGP is a research
effort to determine the sequence of the three billion chemical base pairs that make up the
human DNA and to ident
ify the approximately 35,000 genes in human DNA

the project results have led to the identification

and availability

of three types of genetic

that can ultimately be used for healthcare
related decisions. The three types
of genetic

screenings involve: the

presence of disease
s (e.g.,

Cystic fibrosis or
Huntington’s disease
, genetic risk for disease
s (e.g., breast cancer or male pattern
, and characteristic traits

(color of eyes or height).

The successful completion of mapp
ing and sequencing
the human genome


has resulted in an extensive amount of information
from voluntary participants.

This process has allowed the genetic

ls to be
analyzed and stored electronically.
Improper uses


such information could have le
d to
severe and negative impacts on society. The
Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications

h Program, created in 1990, is

part of the Human Genome Project, and
more specifically, the National Human Genome Resea
rch Institute.
According to,

the p
rogram “funds and manages studies” to “foster basic and applied
research on the ethical, legal
, and

social implications of genetic and genomic research
As the first bioethics program to take a proactive appro
ach to handling such ethical
issues, it

to stimulate public discussion of these issues as well as


develop ways
to ensure that uses of genomic research woul
d benefit society.

Application of Genetic Screening

To date, genetic information is used i
n several ways
The Environmental Genome

seeks to “improve understanding of human genetic susceptibili
ty to
environmental exposures,
which includes the goal of understanding how individuals
differ in their susceptibility to environmental agen
ts and how these susceptibilities
change over time.”

is part of
larger initiative involving genetic and genomic
on population genomics. It uses gathered public medical records of diseases and
genetic information for research in specifi
c population related diseases. The goal of EGP
is to identify specific genes responsible for common chronic diseases in large
populations. For example, the project could help identify populations that have a high
percentage of breast cancer and heart dis

Having this information could then help
the pharmaceutical and medical research facilities to increase resource capabilities.

Additionally, faster methods of testing DNA samples are being developed to
accelerate genomic research. The use of faster
computers and advanced software are
used to compare and contrast DNA variations as well. Because of advances in
information and communications technology and genomic technologies, it’s easier to
identify groups of individuals and groups that are susceptib
le to certain kinds of
diseases. This sort of information is crucial for society’s benefits in medical and
genetic advancement because it will help pharmaceutical and research companies to

better treat and study this population.

But as a consequence of g
enetic testing fears,
research subjects are less willing to volunteer their genetic information than before.

Genetic information
used in the context of criminal prosecutions
population genomics, genetic screening for diseases and specific traits,

DNA evidence of
murder and rape cases
, and paternity litigations, just to name a few.

, the
federal government has also enacted legislation permitting the use of DNA databases

certain convicted criminals. For example, u
nder the
Criminal Just
ice Legislation
the government can use reasonable force to collect DNA s
amples from convicted

Fears of Genetic Testing

Recent technological advances bring light to an individual’s once dark and
unknown medical future. Instead of only hoping f
or the best, people can now partake in
genetic tests to determine their susceptibility of developing certain conditions later on
in life. Yet, the majority of the population is for
going the “benefits of new predictions,
diagnoses, and therapies” because t
hey do not have confidence in the privacy of their

As a result, t
hose individuals that once served as medical research subjects are
now unwilling to volunteer for studies. Consequently, without subjects to observe and
test, the quality of research

for future medical studies are

is problematic for the future.
One of the underlying reasons for this unwillingness and
decrease in research subjects includes the fact that researchers refuse to be held
responsible for the sel
ling of database systems as well as stolen genetic information
from database system breaches.

For example, in the case that Tavani featured in
Implications for Personal Privacy

Toysmart customers were given assurances that
their personal information wil
l be protected by the company’s privacy policy.
However, when the company filed for bankruptcy in 2000, they sold off databases
containing customer information while believing that they were no longer bound by the
old privacy policies. They based their ju
stification on the fact that the company was no
longer tied to prior contracts and that the database contents were now the sole property
of a new owner.

Privacy Concerns

Genetic data
difficult to keep confidential

because a great deal of our medical
nformation is stored electronically which makes it susceptible to misuse by third
parties. This sort of data is very revealing
about us

because it discloses our complete
genetic make
up. Many challenges exist in trying to conceal our DNA. We shed our
tic information on a daily basis. It can be easily acquired from a sealed envelope, a
dirty facial tissue, loose hair on a comb, or even from a used drinking mug. Therefore,
we will always be vulnerable to revealing our DNA to whoever tries to acquire th
information. What is worse, DNA is easier to acquire than other medical information
and, it can have more profound consequences for us.

In light of the ease of genetic accessibility, the

use of this information raises

concerns to individuals f
or d
ifferent types of reasons.

Discrimination by insurance companies
: People fear that they will be discriminated
against by insurers. Insurance companies could collect peoples’ DNA data to decide who
to insure and what to charge them. This would result in a

certain proportion of the
population that would become uninsurable and discriminated against based on their
genetic background, something that they have little control over.

Employment discrimination
: Genetic screening in the workplace is on the rise and

could lead to discrimination against people who might be screened for future potential

Also, e
mployers have incentive to discriminate

against current or potential

based on
DNA as long as health insurance is provided through the
. Since medical screenings reveal the current or potential health complications
people have, insurers will charge higher premiums to those who have genetics that are
linked to undesirable traits.

Genetic S

Improving technology and the rela
tive ease of accessibility to
peoples’ DNA could allow everyone to routinely check out other individual’s genetic
codes. This will pose as an extreme concern when genetic screening becomes
commercialized. This will enable just about anyone to get a geneti
c test done for a low

Cyber R

Genetic information can easily be stored within any database. This
becomes a critical challenge to professionals responsible for the privacy and
confidentiality o
f patient health information.
The cyber risks as
sociated with the use of
this information include: system vulnerability, system circumvention, and ver
and enrollment fraud.

These risks continue to be a growing concern in relation to the use
of databases to store the mass amount of genetic info
rmation. If hackers have the
capability to infiltrate these databases, they will be able to access our genetic information,
and even worse, sell this information to anyone from commercial companies to market
researchers and biotech laboratories.


The potential use of genetic information for commercial

purposes is proving to be a problematic concern in recent years. For example, in 1991,
Incyte Pharmaceutics sold databases of genetic information to drug companies and
researchers. This i
was then

used to market to certain populations that
susceptible to specific health diseases

And in the case of deCODE Genetics
Incorporated, a genetic research company that accessed the DNA of the Icelandic
population through their
government’s permission, the company commodified the
Icelandic population’s genetic information for commercial profits such as obtaining
contracts with IBM to produce “gene
mining” software and a $200 million contract with
a Swiss pharmaceuticals co


mining of genetic information is an underlying threat to medical and
related privacy. Genetic data
mining is used to manipulate recorded and stored
data by finding patterns and relationships in data by forming hypotheses.

software is used to sift through DNA of large populations and, from there correlations
of gene and gene variations are compiled based on gene samples and disease records.
These classifications and correlations of designated group data are then us
ed in the
determination of things such as health insurance coverage or employment decisions.
The individual has no say in how the data is processed and will not even be aware that
decisions on their everyday lives were based on generalizations of group da
ta. Also,
databases are containing a wider range of information that can be easily accessible to a

greater amount of people who have other purposes for using it.

Ethical Dilemma

According to the rights
based moral theory, “all humans have certain moral
rights or natural rights.”

Such rights include the right to life and the right to privacy.
Rights based theories include positive rights, otherwise known as entitlement rights,
which claims that others are obligated to provide us with the things that we a
re entitled
to, such as jobs and health care.

Additionally, this theory includes negative rights as
well, which provides us with the freedom to do something without interference from

One could apply this theory to genetic screening information in

regards to
employment and insurance practices. We have a positive right to health care and
employment, as well as to privacy. We also have a negative right to have those things
without interference from others. Third parties and the abuse of genetic infor
interfere with our rights to keep medical information private and it also interferes with
our rights to apply for jobs that have reasonable insurance coverage. Therefore,
unethical applications of genetic screening information directly violate our r

The Government and Genetic Privacy



only a handful of federal legislation



on the use of genetic information. As you can see from the chart below, current
regulations are not enough to protect our
genetic privacy against misuse by employers
and insurers. Most of these regulations are broad
based legislations that protect only
certain classes of people such as federal employees or members of a group policy plan.
This evidently creates loopholes for

employers and insurers to get around these laws.


Criminal Justice Legislation

Privacy protection section

(in the
Criminal Justice Legislation)

Limits the disclosure of stored DNA inform
ation to crime agencies,
courts, and for defense purposes in criminal cases such as rape or murder.

Contains a specific sectional addition of (42 U.S.C. sec 14135(e)) that
states the FBI and all states accessing the index are required to dispose of
ecords of persons whose criminal convictions were overturned (42
U.S.C. sec 14135(d)).

Litigation warrant and court

Gives judicial proceedings authorization to pursue the use of DNA as
evidence in cases such as paternity suits.


Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 or

(Pub. L. No 104

States that genetic information shall not be considered a pre
condition in the absence of a diagnosis of an actual condition.

Executive Order 13145

Forbids th
e Federal government from discriminating on genetic grounds.

The Daschle
Kennedy Bill

Prohibits federal employers from considering genetic information in
hiring, promoting, discharging and all other employment decisions.

The HIPPA National Standard
s to
Protect Patients’ Personal Medical

Regulates and helps protects medical records and other personal health
information maintained by health care providers, hospitals, health plans
and health insurers, and health care clearinghouses.

tle VII of the Civil Rights Act of

Prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of sex, race, national
origin, religion, or color.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973

and the
Title I of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA

Enforced by
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),
offers a broader protection of genetic discrimination in the work place
such as disabilities discrimination.

The Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act of


The act would have “prohibited dis
crimination in health insurance and
employment on the basis of predictive genetic information.”

unfortunately, this bill was never enacted into federal legislation.

Executive Order 13335

Establishes the importance of the development and implemen
tation of a
nationwide interoperable health information technology.

Executive Order 13410

Requires Federal health programs to provide “meaningful, consistent
information on both the quality and price of health care services.

Questions Raised From
Genetic Screening

Genetic tests provide

detailed information that can be easily stored within
which raises the question of how the government and researchers need to

manage and protect individ
uals’ health
related data. Several

social and e
that HGP and genet
ic screening have provoked include

How will privacy rights be affected?

2. What are the
of obtaining this information?

3. How are

federal laws going to protect genetic information?

4. How will data
mining aff
ect this information?

5. How will employers and insurers be held to ethical standards?

Genetic Privacy as a Universal Right

Your genes
and DNA
belong to you.
They are your personal property and
should be treated as so. But this is not the case in court
warrants, DNA extraction from
criminals, and even private research facility contracts. Criminals get their DNA
extracted and recorded to databases. Court warrants force the use of gene information
for litigations, and private research facilities disclose

peoples’ genetic data through
publicly stored research results and publications. Once this information is collected, it is
thought to be the property of the government and its databases, so it can be freely
published in research articles. Furthermore, med
ical information is highly sensitive and
reveals much about our identity. It should be given emphasis over communications
privacy because “genes are private, not public, property.”

Communications such as
corporate surveillance only addresses issues such a
s productivity, efficiency, and use of
resources in the workplace; whereas the use of genetic screenings by employers and
insurers are more personal and surveys our entire genetic background on a microscopic

Privacy is worth protecting because it i
s “an expression or articulation of a core
moral value which is essential for human flourishing, and privacy provides a valuable
shield that protects us against unwanted interference, intrusion, and inappropriate
access to information about us.”

This brin
gs up several important points on how an

, insurer, and even the government

should not have the ability to spy on
anyone’s genetic information

the person’s
. Imagine the
possibilities if random individuals had unlimited access to

all of your information,

including private genetic disclosures. Genetic privacy needs to be addressed as a
universal right because everyone should have the right to protect and determine who
has access to their DNA information. This kind of privacy is a
s vital, if not more so, as
private property because it is potentially more invasive and revealing about our
character than any other kind of technology.

Abuse of Information

The commercialization of genetic testing will result in additional

privacy con
on a microscopic level. Strangers are able to obtain another

individual’s DNA
information by taking a


tissue or hair sample into
a research lab for analysis.
By 2010, scientists expect that the cost of obtaining this information will only b
e $100.

Our private
data will surely be compromised i
and when
this technology become

common form of identification

that anyone has access to.

inexpensive genetic testing is on the brink of commercialization

needs to be addressed w
ith more conservative (or strict) federal regulations. Because it
is impossible to prevent genetic screening material from coming into the hands of those
who want it, it is imperative that federal laws regulate those who extract the data. All
ial abuses listed above raise th
e question, “Do current laws

protect people from
this abuse

federal laws
, previously mentioned,
slightly suggest that we might
be protected by these regulations.

Additionally, t
he use of genetic testing raises qu
estions of abuse
of medical and
information. There is a growing concern that the accessibility of an individual’s
genetic data will be a basis for discrimination in cases such as employment and
insurance coverage. Also, some primary concerns are t
hat insurers will use this
information to deny, limit, or cancel insurance policies and that
employer will use
the information against their
workers or to screen potential employees

example of this kind of misuse of genetic data can be seen

in the case of the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Corporation lawsuit. In this court case, a railroad worker was
threatened with an investigation for insubordination if he refused to get “additional,
objective medical information” to determine whether or n
ot his carpal tunnel syndrome
was work

When the railroad worker’s wife, a nurse, called to inquire about

the list of lab tests that were to be done, the medical liaison for the company refused to
release the information. This is just one exampl
e of a violation to people’s privacy and
the potential misuse of genetic information against employees.

Moreover, the increase of employment related genetic screenings may not be as
adequate as previously thought.

For example, a
lthough employers are becom

interested in using genetic information to determine the health and cost of current and
potential employees, the results found in such genetic tests may actually be
insignificant to the company. Genetic tests may reveal genes on different chromoso
that indicate an elevated probability of specific diseases, such as Alzheimer’s.
However, such genetic predispositions are not always job related. For example,
Alzheimer’s disease typically develops at the average age of 72.8 years old

comparison to

the average retirement age of 59

Evidently, employers will not be
affected by these future medical costs, assuming that the individual does in fact develop
the disease. An article from the Wall Street Journal mentioned that “most such genes
have their

effect only if an environmental factor is also pushing

in the same direction.”

Thus, the effects of genes are not entirely inevitable as outside factors often determine
the development of some diseases and as time progresses, medical technology is
ping more ways to further prevent and/or reduce the effects of certain ailments.

Genetic fatalism is a term used f
or those individuals, and in this case

that have a “grossly exaggerated view of th
e power of genes.”

This view holds that
“we can
not avoid specific genetically determined outcomes, no matter what we do or
what happens t
o us: our fate is in our genes”
. Employers that believe in this point may
neglect to hire any candidate that has a genetic link to some sort of ailment, despite tha
individual’s potential performance value. Similarly, insurance companies may find it
necessary to increase the insurance rates of any person with unfavorable genetic
predispositions or deny them coverage altogether. In all reality, “we can overcome the
ffects of genes.”

Comparable to social factors, genes are conditional and subject to
outside forces.

Employers and insurers need to have a more practical outlook on the
information found from genetic screenings as the results are not inevitable.
It is
rational for an employer
deny a healthy person employment or
for an
insurer to
coverage on a genetic predisposition to developing a d
isease in the future.

If this

approach was applied to everyone, no one would have a job or insurance because the

majority of people
have some tie to
an assortment

of genetic predisposition

Furthermore, e
mployers should consider how a given condition will hinder job
performance and if the employee’s value outweighs the medical and company costs
associated wi
th the hindrance. Suppose a genetic test for a highly skilled employee
reveals that she is susceptible to colon cancer, which she later develops, but the cancer
was caught in the early stages so the treatment enabled her to fully overcome the
disease. Tak
ing only two weeks of unpaid leave to recover, the individual returns to
work, and her performance is in no way affected by her past condition. Should the
company fire this valuable employee upon learning of her diagnoses? Or would it be
more of a burden t
o find a new employee that possesses

half the skill set of this
individual, simply to avoid higher insurance costs? What is this employee really worth?
Moreover, employers must determine if the potential genetic findings are even relevant
to job duti
es and
question if such revelations will make any practical difference to job
Individuals with disabilities are protected under the American with
Disabilities Act of 1990 which permits reasonable accommodations to be made, as long
as the perso
n can perform the necessary set of duties.

More Federal Regulation Needed

The protection of federal laws

such as tha

offered by the HIPAA

is limited.
This federal law does not prohibit
insurers from increasing rates based on

genetic test
results nor
does it cover individuals who are not in a group plan. This poses a big
problem considering
the fact
that 46.6 million American
s do not have health insurance.

Also, it does not protect against discrimination by employers who could be screening for
ic genetic discrepancies

The legislations
discussed in this paper do

not specifically
address genetic testing in relation to privacy but it

does discuss

medical examinations and
inquiries in relation to terms of pre
employment, pre
placement and post
levels. Again, it does not address the
ssue at hand. Under current

, pre
employment medical screenings are prohibited unless the employer makes a conditional
job offer on the successful completion of the examination. But

what if it was
The employer is under no obligation to indicate why the individual was not

hired nor does he have to tell the individual about his test results

he information
generated by the tests
does not have to be disclosed to the individual who to
ok the test.

This raises ethical concerns about the privacy rights of the subjects that underwent such

, the 2005 Legislative Notice concluded its administration position
with, “the Administration wants to work with Congress to mak
e genetic discrimination
illegal and provide individuals with fair, reasonable protections against improper use of
genetic information.”

But the problem is that there are no strong regulations in
place for these protections.


y mentioned federal regulations
propose some measures of protection

against disability
related genetic discrimination in
the workplace, none of the
se statutes explicitly address

genetic information i
n relation
to those who have

access to the genetic databa
ses. Existing laws also fail to address
how the information can be used by em
ployers and insurance companies, and it does
t address the issue of managing and protecting genetic information

from data
Moreover, the bills that specifically address
the use of genetic information, such as the
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2005, were never enacted. Therefore,
existing laws, as discussed in the government regulation chart, fail to address how the
information can be used by employers and i
nsurance companies, and it does not address
the issue of managing and protecting genetic information from such applications such
as data

Mining of Genetic Information

The use of data
mining by employers and insurers is not entirely adequate

because it makes generalizations about groups of people and it uses this information to
predict results for individual cases. The use of profiling in data
mining constructs
groups on the basis of non
distributional profiling and this information is used
companies to make decisions about individuals and groups without their knowledge or
permission. For example, in Custar’s hypothetical example, data
mining can be used to
correlate the data of populations who own red cars and having colon cancer.


information, once collected, is then used by health insurance companies to raise the

insurance premiums or deny insurance to people based on the fact that their clients fit
into the correlation between red cars and colon cancer. There is no just connectio
between these two records yet this is a real problem that is occurring today. Companies
are making decisions about people based on information that have no relevant
relationships. The use of these generalizations will discriminate against those
uals who are judged and treated on the basis of belonging to the “wrong category
of persons.”

Evidently, the use of a
ggregated data
in data
mining cases raises
huge concern


one’s privacy. Despite the fact that individuals have legal rights over per
data as it applies directly to one’s self, a person does not have the same rights over the
personal information that is deriv
ed from that data.

This creates a problem especially
when databases are sold to or acquired by other organizations. It bring
s to question
whether or not the new company has a right to utilize the personal information stored in
these databases. The individuals at risk


their information used
by this different organization.

refore, the

eation of group

profiling and aggregated data

is problematic in
the sense that aside from group
, the properties and characteristics
assigned to members have no relevance fo
r the individuals.

Such generalizations lead
to arbitrary
assumptions that limit and p
enalize people in terms of employment
practices and insurance rates.


of Ethical Standards

Employers and insurers should be held to the rights and the virtue approach of
ethical standards. Under the rights approach of ethical standards, “the et
hical action is
one that most dutifully respects the rights of all affected,”

which, in application to our
arguments, mean that employers should respect their worker’s rights and health insurers
should respect the rights of their policy holders.

The ri
ghts approach expands to all
rights including that of genetic medical information privacy, its confidentiality, and
informed consent to use this information. According to this standard, people should have
the right to maintain their medical and health rel
ated privacy. Employers and insurers
should have to obtain consent from the individual to request a testing, instead of making

it a requirement. Also, people should have the right to keep their medical data
confidential and employers and insurers should
acknowledge that the data produced by
genetic screening is sensitive and access to this information should be limited to parties
authorized to receive it.

Moreover, under the virtue approach of ethical standards, “the ethical action is the
one that embo
dies the habits and values of humans at their best” and includes virtues
such as fairness and integrity.

The virtue approach should be used to ask the question,
“What kind of employer would one be if one decides to use genetic screening in the
?” and “Would the action of requiring genetic tests be consistent with the
employer acting at his best for the best of his associates?”


Without genetic privacy protection we are all vulnerable to employment
discrimination and group profiling by

insurance companies. The lack of federal
regulation over health
related information allows this data to be shared, exchanged, sold,
and/or aggregated by data
mining without the patient’s knowledge and permission. That
data can then be acquired by employer
s and insurance companies to be used against
individuals. The personal information obtained from genetic testing can be made public
through electronic accessibility which poses a privacy threat to health records.
Ultimately, unauthorized accessibility of h
ealth information violates both our negative
and positive rights to health care, employment, and privacy, as noted in the rights based

Furthermore, job requirements will be based on health attributes rather than skills,
knowledge, or experience a
nd employers may hold misguided views of what their ideal
candidate’s genetic make
up should look like. Consequently, organizations will miss out
on talented individuals that may add value to the company. As a result, the economy, and
society as a whole, w
ill suffer from the exclusion of such gifted people. Also, health
insurance companies will have the power to take advantage of this information to control
and manipulate benefit costs for unfavorable subscribers. So, as long as genetic
information exists
and is accessible to employers and insurers through databases, privacy
rights are susceptible to interference and misuse by third parties.

Therefore, the gathering of genetic information will inevitably lead to exploitation
in the forms of stigmatization

and discrimination from employers and insurance
companies. That is why it is extremely important that the federal government enacts
legislations that directly address the use and commercialization of genetic information as
well as regulate the protection

of this very private and personal information that could be
used in harmful ways against its original owners. In addition to more government
intervention, there is also a growing need of more ethical standards that employers and
insurers should abide to.

By using ethical standards as a guide, employers and insurers
can use a more effective means of evaluating current and potential employees and
determining plan holder options while upholding a standard of fairness and responsibility.

Works Cited


Curley, and

Caperna, “The brave new world is here: Privacy issues and the Human
Genome Project,”
ABI/INFORM Global, ProQuest Direct,
[Online serial] Jan 2003:22
[14 Feb 2007], Available at
: http://


Harman, “Attitudes toward genetic testing: Gender, role, and discipline,”
Global, ProQuest Direct
, [Online serial] Jan/Mar 2003, 50
59, [13 Feb 2007], Available at

[3], “H.R. 1227 [109
: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2005,”
[Online document] 20
06, [18 Feb 2007], Available at


Tavani, “Genomic Research and Data
Mining Technology: Implications for Personal
ABI/INFORM Global, ProQuest Direct,

[Online serial] Mar 2004, 15
28, [14 Feb
2007], Available at: http://


The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, “The Environmental Genome
Project,” [Online document] May 2
04, [18 Feb 2007], Available at



Ridley,“Hands Off My Genes,”
ABI/INFORM Global, ProQuest Direct

[Online serial] 15
Feb 2000:26
28, 13 Feb 2007], Available at: http://

ton, and
Shane and C
Harris and D

Shumack and K

Webster, “The Emerging
Cyber Risks of Biometrics,”
ABI/INFORM Global, ProQuest Direct,

[Online serial] Oct
31, [14 Feb 2007], Available at:


Tavani, Ethics
and Technology, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 59

Moore, “Rights Based Moral Theory & Privacy,” [Online document] Date not specified, [06
Apr 2007], Available at:

Office of Legisl
ative Policy and Analysis, “109

Congress Legislative Updates: Genetic
Nondiscrimination,” [Online document] Dec 2006, [18 Feb 2007], Available at:


US Chamber of

Commerce, “Transparence & Value
Driven Health Care,” [Online
document] 2007, [27 Mar 2007], Available at:

[12] Girion, Lisa, “Nurse Derails Genetic Testing,” [Online do
cument] 25 Feb 2001, [06 Apr
2007], Available at:


Armour, and S

Block, “Many Americans retire years before they want to.” [Online
document] 26 July 2006, [17 Feb 2007], Available at:

Resnik, and D

Vorhaus, “Genetic Modification and Genetic Determinism,” [Online
document] June 2006, [06 Apr 2007], Available at:

, “Legislative Notice: S. 206

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2005,”
[Online document] 16 Feb 2005, [18 Feb 2007], Available at:


US Census Bureau News, “US Census Press Release
s: Income Climbs, Poverty Stabilizes,
Uninsured Rate Increases,” [Online document] 2006, [02 Feb 2007], Available at:

André, and
Decosse, and
Hanson, and
Lean, and

Velasquez, and
T. Shanks,

“A Framework for Thinking Ethically,” [Online
document] Nov 1988, [06 Apr 2007], Available at:

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
oratory, “Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues in Genetic
Testing,” [Online document] Date not specified, [06 Apr 2007], Available at:

The Ethics of Gender Selection

Whitney Akchurin

Ryan Kartzke


Over the course of human history, the gender of a newborn child has mostly been
a surprise and an u
ncontrollable aspect of the lifecycle. Technology today allows for
parents to not only know the gender of their child before birth, but to choose the child’s
gender before being implanted in the womb. Advancements in reproductive technologies
over the pa
st few decades have given parents the freedom and ability to control many
aspects of bearing children. In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and testing embryos for
abnormalities are not new in the developed nations of the world, but using these
technologies to se
lect gender is a recent and controversial movement for reproductive
freedom. Gender pre
selection has been categorized with human cloning, the use of stem
cells, and eugenics. In the United States, gender selection through Preimplantation
Genetic Diagnos
is (PGD) for non
medical purposes is a violation of ethical practices and
presents the potential for deep societal complications. The argument does not involve the
discussion of religion or any suggestions regarding legislation, but it does address the fa
that “[PGD] promotes a public life lacking moral depth.”


Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis is a technology that tests the chromosomes of
an embryo to determine genetic abnormalities and gender before being placed in the
womb. A sperm sorting proc
ess, such as MicroSort, can improve the odds of having a
child of the desired gender by 80 to 90 percent.

This technology is not covered under
any insurance plan and can cost up to $40,000, which is the price an Australian couple

paid to ensure the conce
ption of a daughter.

The PGD process is performed when a
woman is undergoing In Vitro Fertilization. On the third day of fertilization, blastomere
cells are extracted from the embryo and their DNA is multiplied by the thousands. The
DNA is then used to

identify specific genes, such as gender, and the embryos with the
preferable DNA sequence are put back in the uterus. These will then be grown to full
term with the hope, aided by technology, that the child will indeed be the gender the
parents desired.

Linked Disorders

Though the reasons for gender selection are personal, some may wonder why
parents are willing to pay thousands of dollars in order to choose the gender of their
child. Physicians are presented with two prominent rationales to thi
s answer, but the
question is whether or not they are ethical. PGD was originally developed to identify and
prevent sex
linked disorders in children and is commonly accepted as an ethical reason to
pursue PGD amongst American society. Certain diseases su
ch as Duchenne Muscular
Dystrophy, Hemophilia, and color blindness are specifically contracted by males through
abnormal genes carried by the X chromosome. A normal Y chromosome is not enough
to balance out the abnormal X chromosome and the disease become
s apparent in a male
child. It is different for females since they are made up of two X chromosomes; if one is
defective and the other is normal, she will become a carrier but not express the disease.
For families vulnerable to these gender linked geneti
c diseases, PGD allows them to
avoid conceiving a child with the potential for a serious illness and significantly reduces
the risk of a premature death.

Prior to the embryo being artificially inseminated into the womb, the
chromosomes can be screened fo
r these genetic diseases.
"There are thousands of babies
born now that we know are going to be free of lethal and/or devastating genetic diseases.
That's a good thing,"

Dr. William Gibbons from a fertility clinic in Baton Rouge


are a few
companies that have the technologies for sperm sorting, and
each has their own set of requirements that need to be fulfilled in order to be eligible for
the procedure. Medical reasons for choosing a gender
specific child is the main issue
physicians take
into consideration before proceeding with the PGD process. However,

there are also companies that do not take into consideration any of the ethical issues of
this technology and are willing to offer their services to

can afford the
procedure. In
regards to medical practices, PGD technology advances previous methods
in which a fetus was tested for gender
based genetic diseases and then aborted if it turned
out to be


of conceiving and later aborting a child, PGD allows parents
h genetic medical conditions to conceive a child free of illness. Under these
circumstances, the use of PGD produces the best outcome for both mother and child. It
prevents mothers with a genetic disposition to gender
based diseases from aborting one
more children and prevents children with the potential for those diseases from
suffering and falling ill from serious gender based

, in the case of
medical need, the use of PGD is an ethical practice. Using PGD for medical reasons is
uided by the Utilitarian approach to ethical behavior, which argues that ethical actions
produce “
the greatest good for the greatest number


The Utilitarian approach is rooted in the idea that ethical actions are judged based
on the consequences of tho
se actions, not the intentions. The approach relies not on self
interest, but the overall interest of


the case of PGD, the use of this
technology for medical reasons creates the best consequences for all of humanity, which
is that fewer chi
ldren are born with serious illnesses. However, it could be argued that
the utilitarian approach can be used to justify the use of PGD for non
medical reasons, as
it would make more parents happy and fulfilled. This argument can be traced back to
terest at the expense of humanity’s long
term interests, especially concerning the
consequences of PGD on natural selection. The consequences for the medical use of PGD
provides a better outcome for more people, while non
medical uses of the technology
ually produces worse consequences for humanity than if it was not used.

“Family Balancing”

Another defense for the ethics of gender selection involves “family balancing,”
which is a non
medical justification for PGD. Families that already have one or mor
children of one sex may want to select the gender of their next child to “balance” the
gender ratio of their


“family balancing” argument for gender selection is
based upon the reasoning that children who are raised in a family with both
genders will

be better for society as a whole. However, this argument could also be viewed as a
parent’s wish for a child of a specific gender. For instance, instead of a family with
multiple children wanting the opposite gender for balance, it could be
that a family values
a firstborn of a certain gender. Some Asian cultures hold belief systems where firstborn
males are preferred over

, there is no strong evidence supporting that
“family balancing” provides a significant benefit for
individual children or society as a
whole. Gender selection for family balancing remains an unethical use of control over a
critical issue concerning childbirth. The problems associated with the widespread
use of gender selection become apparent when

considering the number of harmful
impacts this human intervention has on society. Bio
ethicist John Robertson of the
American Society for Reproductive Medicine commented on the societal defense for
family balancing saying that, "a strong showing in the f
uture that gender variety among
children is important to an individual's welfare or a family's flourishing could justify a
different result."


evidence is presented that gender variety in families produces
better results for society, PGD should not
be employed as a vehicle of parental
satisfaction. Using the rights
based approach to ethics, every human has dignity based on
their human nature and “they have the right to be treated as ends and not merely as means
to other ends.”


child has a dig
nity that must be preserved. Using children as a
means to another end such as the fulfillment of the wants of their parents is a violation of
the basic dignity of the child.

Though determining a child’s gender may equalize gender within a family, it can
otentially offset the world’s natural gender ratio. A fairly equal division of births
amongst boys and girls has existed both in the past and present.


gender were to
become consistently preferred over another, the issues of gender
power and sexist

become relevant. Whether the greater value is placed on males or females depends on the
cultural beliefs of different countries. Unequal gender ratios based on social reasons is a
current problem in China and India because their cultures value ma


one gender over another conveys the message that sexist practices are
acceptable in the United


the American population has to consider is this:
“is there any merit to the argument that sex pre
selection reinforces a

social tendency to
link sex to worth, ultimately harming the cause of male
female social equality?”


values are something America has been devoted to eliminating over the past
few decades. Allowing gender selection for non
medical purposes doe
s not work to solve
any societal issues, but rather creates morally unacceptable values.

Children as Consumer Products

Further supporting the irrationality of gender selection for non
medical reasons
involves the idea of children as consumer products. PG
D is often referred to as the first
step in the creation of a “designer baby.” Paying for a child’s gender provides another
way Americans can use money and technology to fulfill superficial desires. The
argument does not suggest that the display of finan
cial status through the purchase of
expensive products alone is an unethical practice. It does however suggest that when
children are marketed as such products in society, it is dehumanizing to their character
and compromises their dignity. What will bec
ome of the world if people view and treat
their children the same way they treat their cars, jewelry, houses, etc? Karen Peterson
Iyer states “that to manipulate offspring genetically is to treat them not as dignified
human subjects worthy of respect, but

rather as objects of parental whim.”


has a
significant impact on a human being’s self perception. Furthermore, it affects the
families that do not follow the “trend”. If these families cannot afford the technology or
are unwilling to use it, they

placed outside the societal norm. This will create an
unnecessary division amongst American society and instill a presence of unethical values
in the daily lives of the American people. By allowing sex choice for non
reasons, American society

will forever lose its natural essence and perhaps halt natural
selection, therefore hindering the evolution of the human species.

When is
Too Much

Soon technology may allow parents to specify not only gender but height, eye
color, skin tone and so on.

The trend towards gender selection aligns with the idea that
people increasingly want control over every possible aspect of their


thus far, gender selection garners less attention than human cloning, even with the
eugenic potential
of this technology. If the United States continues to accept gender
selection, it may be the gateway to other forms of trait selection. Many proponents of

gender selection argue that banning the technology would be restricting reproductive
freedom. This

argument looks only at the individual choice and less at the social and
cultural effects of these types of decisions. If the technology were to become widely used,
it is likely to precipitate societal pressures on the parents about the choices they make f
their child. “Becoming enfolded into a technological destiny requires a fundamental
alteration of moral vision,” and it is dangerous to assume that preference of the individual
grants moral permission. While these issues are speculative at best, the e
ffect of this
technology on society presents a realistic threat.

Gender selection methods of the poorer populations, such as infanticide, are
illegal and blatantly unethical, while more expensive methods such as sperm sorting may
be viewed as both ethical
ly and legally

acceptable. In China and India, gender selection
resulted in a heavily unbalanced population and society did not self
correct the value
placed on the female population due to scarcity. This method works in economics with
the supply and dem
and of a product; however, the idea does not translate to the value of a
certain gender.
This technology creates the opportunity for gender stereotyping and
discrimination by a society
, which can be seen by the

gender disparity in
China where t
here are more than 500,000 “missing girls” each


used on a large
scale, the gender ratio may become severely imbalanced forcing the requirement to select
a certain gender so that a balance can be reached. The outcome would result in the
on of reproductive rights, rather than the liberty of them, which is what the
proponents of this technology argue today.

Competition in Demand

The PGD method has been around for over a decade, but its use as a gender
selection technology is fairly new.

Moving from the use of PGD as a medical risk
reduction tool to a preference trend is a simple task, but many doctors have refused to use
the technology for such unethical purposes. A reproductive endocrinologist at NYU
Medical Center adds that “centers o
ffering such sex selection would sully the field and
could ultimately make it impossible to help patients with a medical need for the


selection for many couples with genetic diseases raises serious
concerns about the health of the mot
her and child. If a trend develops around the

selection of a gender, it could hinder a doctor’s ability to help those with a true need for
this technology.

medicinal uses of the technology might create competition in demand,
rewarding the highest bidd
er instead of the people using the procedure for medical
purposes. By eliminating those couples using PGD for medical purposes, society will
face a larger economic burden that come with some of these gender specific diseases. In
the United States, reprod
uctive rights have remained very private, creating a barrier for
discussion surrounding ethical issues of gender selection. When comparing gender
selection to plastic surgery, which to many is considered a luxury of the wealthy, the
issue becomes clearer.

Using PGD for non
medical reasons can diminish the American
value of self
worth as it becomes exclusive to those in higher classes, widening the
economic gap and stratifying society.

Natural Selection

A popular criticism of gender selection is that th
e doctors, and to an extent the
parents, are “playing god” by choosing the gender of their child. Using the term “playing
god” has many implications and involves a debate that is outside the scope of this paper.
However, having a child is a natural pheno
menon and should remain that way for several
important reasons.

The reproductive process is well understood by today’s standards, but there is still
much to learn. Scientists do not fully understand why a particular sperm makes it to an
egg before the o
thers; it could be random or it could be nature’s primary form of


If it is the former, then there is little to worry about, but the latter would imply
that we (the human race) are in fact weakening ourselves by controlling the reproduct
process and hindering evolutionary progress. As conditions such as climate and disease
change over time, natural selection ensures that the best adapted varieties of the species
will survive to reproduce. Thus, those who have evolved to better adapt
will become a
larger portion of the population and continue the species.

PGD and other sperm sorting
technologies could allow an inferior sperm to be implanted and produce an embryo.
Though parents may get the option to choose either a boy or girl, the

choice may lead to
the development of other undesirable traits; low intelligence, birth defects, the passing of

hereditary diseases, or even genetic disorders. These undesirable traits could be further
filtered out by genetic engineering technologies, al
lowing parents to further customize
their children. This notion of “procreative liberty fails to address [the] question of
destiny, a serious omission since it purports to guide an irresistible ‘desire for greater
control of the reproductive process.”


begs the question; does gender selection really
represent a scientific leap that will benefit mankind?

Identity Crisis

There is another problem that could stem from the use of gender selection
technologies, particularly with the use of genetic
engineering. Gender Identity Disorder
“is defined by strong, persistent feelings of identification with the opposite gender and
discomfort with one's own assigned sex.”


is considered a mental illness in the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

, but recent scientific research
indicates the problem may be biologically or genetically


the gender of an
embryo is changed through the use of genetic engineering, the operation would
essentially become a pre
birth sex change opera
tion. This could potentially lead to an
increased number of people with gender
identity issues due to human interference with a
natural process.

A common complaint of people who face gender identity issues is that
they do not feel whole or complete. It
is logical to assume that this feeling could become
apparent to a child whose gender was chosen for them. This is not suggesting that trans
gendered people are undesirable, but that a child whose gender was selected may
mentally and emotionally embody a d
ifferent sex later in life because of a choice made
by the parents before birth.

The individual psychological effects of gender selection go beyond trans
gendered people and can also affect the relationship of the parent and child. If a child is
not born
the chosen sex, this could create tension within the family due to preconceived
ideas about the identity of the newborn.

It is important to recognize that while gender
selection does offer the image of a perfect family, it is still an unproven technology
has the potential to create deeply rooted physical and/or psychological problems that the
child would have to live with for the rest of its life.

Procreative Rights

Procreative autonomy “is the liberty to decid
e when and how to have children

ding to what parents’ judge is best.”


parents feel that if the technology
exists, then they should have the
right to ch
oose the gender of their child to
create the type of family they want to have. What this particular argument fails to

address is that procreative autonomy concerns an individual’s control of their role in
procreation and allows them to exercise their individual liberty. It should not explicitly
grant them the liberty to intervene with the natural formation of a child be
cause that
would interfere with

the child’s individual liberty and autonomy. By choosing the gender
of the child for them, they are stripped of their own autonomy to grow as needed. It
violates the roles and morals that American society values and has de
emed ethical
practice. With regards to gender selection, procreative autonomy is the equivalent to
assuming that parents and doctors know what is best for an unborn child. It also assumes
that the decision of doctors and parents produces a better outcome

than natural selection


While the technology does exist to choose a child’s gender, it does not imply that
it should be used for

purposes. Childbirth is a complex series of molecular
reactions and organic growth, and whil
e doctors have learned much about the process,
there is still much that is unknown. The companies that offer these services cannot
guarantee the gender of the baby and ultimately cannot determine the mental and physical
state of the child.

For this reaso
n, gender selection is not a safe or proven process.

Before PGD, pre
birth gender selection methods were more myth than science,
but now that parents literally have the ability to pick male or female, it is more important
than ever to consider the conseque
nces. Technological pre
birth gender selection not
only interrupts a natural process, but it can also disrupt the delicate formation of the
parent relationship. The potential

of this technology are numerous
and life
long for the famili
es involved. A significant pressure is placed on children born
into situations where they are built to fit a specific dream of their parents. When the

image of that perfect child and family does not transfer into reality, how much will the
next procedure

cost to fix what is not

Technology has allowed mankind to make many choices about how people live
their lives, but gender selection allows people to make a choice about someone else’s life,
a choice that is ethically not theirs to make. The use of

this technology cannot be looked
at as the preference or choice of a parent when that choice can severely impact the child’s
quality of life and damage the workings of society as a whole. The study of medicine has
produced many wonderful achievements tha
t have benefited mankind and additional
regulation in the medical community would only hinder its progress. For this reason, i
t is

of the p
arents to ignore this technological capability and not intervene in the
natural process of childbirth.

Works Cited

[1] B. Waters, Reproductive Technology. Cleveland: The Pilgrim P, 2001. 1

[2] "MicroSort Technology." [Online

] MicroSort. 1996. Genetics and IVF Institute.
Mar. 2007, Available at:

[3] "Designer Daughter." [Online

] ABC News Online. 2006. Feb.
Mar. 2007,
Available at:

[4] Verlinsky, Yury, and A. Kuliev. Preimplantation Diagnosis of Genetic Diseases. New York:
Liss, 1993. 1

[5] A. Si
lverman, "Genetic Diseases." [Online

] The Silverman Center for Gender
Selection. 2005. The Silverman Center for Gender Selection. Feb.
Mar. 2007, Available at:

[6] Talk About It. [Online


2007. OC Online Comm
unity. Feb.
Mar. 2007, Available

[7] C. Sureau, "Human Reproduction." [Online Journal] Gender Selection: a Crime Against
Humanity or the Exercise of a Fundamental Right? Apr. 1999. Oxford Journals. Feb.
2007, Available

[8] B Dickens, "Can Sex Selection Be Ethically Tolerated?" [Online Journal] JME Online. 2002.
Journal of Medical Ethics. Feb.
Mar. 2007, Available at

Kay, "Notes on Utilitarianism." [Online Document] 20 Jan. 1997. Apr. 2007, Available at:

[10] L. Hinman, Ethics Updates

Presentation: Utilitarianism [Online

] Available at:

[11] A. Cline, "Ge
nder Selection

Ethical Considerations & New Technologies." [Online

] Agnosticism/Atheism.2007.Feb.Mar.2007, Available at:

[12] J. Robertson, Preconception Gender Selection. [Onl
ine Journal] American Journal of
Bioethics, Available at:

[13] "Thinking About Sex Selection." [Online

] Staff Background Paper. Oct. 2002.
The President's Councilon Bioe
thics. Feb.
Mar. 2007, Available at:

[14] Santa Clara University. A Framework for Thinking Ethically.


], Available

[15] C. Sureau, "Human R
eproduction." [Online Journal] Gender Selection: a Crime Against
Humanity or the Exercise of a Fundamental Right? Apr. 1999. Oxford Journals. Feb.
2007, Available at:

16] K. Peterson
Iyer, Designer Children. Clevelan
d: The Pilgrim P, 2004. 1

[17] B. Engelen and A. Vandevelde. "A Defense of Common Sense." [Online

] Institute
for Philosophy (2004). Feb.
Mar. 2007, Available at: http://www.ethical

[18] K.Cloonman, C. Crumley, and S. Kiymaz.

"Sex Selection: Ethical Issues." [Online

Developmental Biology. The New York Times. Feb.